A Unique Proposal on Rom 1:18-2:1

[mikesw]

I present a different concept of the audience and of Rom 1:18-2:1 than is commonly held. This for consideration by people who may be interested. I don't quite expect people will change to this concept immediately.

The benefits of my initial findings (like Rom 1:18-2:1 as a juridical parable that implicates the gentiles concerning their anti-Jewish sentiment) do not become apparent until maybe Rom 3:27 “Where then is there room for or basis for boasting? Now 3:27 does not come into clarity until Rom 4:1-3, at which time the boasting of Jews is rejected. [Thus Rom 4:1-3 tells the gentiles not to be persuaded by the boasting in the need for works of the law.]

I'm sharing on Rom 1:18-2:1 as the passage that opened up the meaning of the rest of the letter after I understood the role of this initial passage. Thus, if a new concept of Rom 1:18-2:1 does not seem to be justified immediately, I will not be surprised that you raise that issue here. My proposed outline arguably demonstrates continuity that is lacking in other explanations of Romans.1

The following is also in video form ( Youtube -- Romans 1_18 to 32 #biblesolved #bibleanswers ).

I find that Paul wrote to Roman Gentile Christians who had thought Jews lost their chance to be saved. so the beginning of the letter presents various techniques to gain their interest in hearing what Paul has written,with him also being a Jew. After the initial chapters Paul steps through different obstacles of their thoughts and behaviors in preparation for a message pushing for their change of attitude toward the Jews in Romans 9-11.

So, Romans 1: 18-21 contain the main content that identified to me the letter's direct recipients as being Gentiles. Paul's approach in 1:18 to 2:1 uses the technique Nathan used when confronting King David. If you're not familiar with the passage of Nathan confronting David in 2 Samuel12:1-9, it will help to listen to a video from me on that or look at the text itself. Here are some Snippets of Romans 1:18 to 32: “ for the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness because that which is known of God is revealed in them for God revealed it to them for the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity, that they may be without excuse, because knowing God they did not glorify him as God.

It goes on later to say “men doing what is inappropriate with men and receiving in themselves the penalty due their errors, even as they refuse to have God in their knowledge, God gave them up to reprobate minds:backbiters, hateful to God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil thing, disobedient to parents, without understanding,covenant breakers, without natural affection, unforgiving,unmerciful, who, knowing the ordinance of God that those who practice such things are worthy of death, not only do the same things but also approve of those who practice these things.”

This is followed by Romans 2:1: “Therefore you are without excuse O man, whoever you are who judge, for in that which you judge another you condemn yourself, for you who judge practice the same things.

The most evident feature of Romans 1 is the intensity of the message. God's Wrath is occurring on people of great depravity. People know God but reject God. Toward the end, an onslaught of rapid details is shared: God gave him up to reprobate minds to do the things which are not fitting being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness,covetousness, malice, full of evil, murderers, strife, deceit, evil habits, secret, and slanderers. Today we call this a hellfire and brimstone message. I call Romans 1:18-32 as simply “the sermon.”It stirs up our hearts and self-righteous judging of others. This is the same emotion as Nathan stirred up in King David's mind. Nathan used this approach to lead David into exposing his heart. Nathan says of David's judgment against the rich men, “You are the man.”After this grand sermon, Paul likewise writes “you are without excuse O man, whoever you who are who judge for in that which you judge another you condemn yourselves, for you practice the same things. Paul has just made a harsh accusation against the Romans.Imagine the sermon and now being exposed for your own judgmental attitude. Your reaction would be worse if you were wholly committed to this view Paul just shared, especially when you think Paul was confirming your view with all that he said in Romans 1. The reaction of the people hearing this would be surprised. That surprise also included recognition that Paul just exposed their judgmental hearts.These gentiles would also recognize their own behavior reflected in Romans 1, not just those of other people. So their own guilt would be exposed both in judgment, but also in failing in the same way as the people they just condemned. Such stirring of emotion was common in the hellfire preaching. The goal of such sermons is for people to recognize their sin and to repent. Paul had the same goal with the with the Roman gentiles. Looking back at 2 Sam 2:1-9, imagine having the rage of David. In such a judgment David's anger burned hot against a man, and now David was exposed as being that man. The effect is that Romans 1 evokes a strong judgmental attitude against whatever group we as readers have envisioned. What does Paul say next(“you are without excuse O man who judge”) shows Paul effectively saying, “You just got all angered and judgmental, didn't you? This rise of agitation and judgmental attitude predictably happened at least among most of his audience in Rome. The effect of Romans 2:1then is to expose the Gentiles' blatantly wrong judgmental attitude.Careful consideration of the situation shows that the Roman Church saw a judgment against the Jews here.

The people hearing this letter first would be nervous what Paul would say but upon hearing this they ironically might have a sense of relief in that they had anticipated a harsher message by Paul due to the various problems of the church (as will be revealed in analysis of subsequent chapters). Very few of their problems have been recognized before,but this passage begins to reveal major problems in Rome in the first century. Their problems are not addressed much yet in the text, but the gentiles might recognize their behavior in the sermon. Although the message was not spoken harshly, the problem of their judgmental attitude was exposed. Plus the cleverness of Paul's approach would have to be noted and in some ways appreciated by the audience. This appreciation would be that Paul did not attack them harshly and caught them in a little trap. This approach to some degree exposes misbehavior and promotes repentance. But the passage only has been the first step to repair problems with the Roman gentile Christians.And I help to show what those problems are in subsequent in the analysis of those chapters.

 

[mikesw]

The 7 minute video on Rom 1:18-2:1 is this one

I also have video on Nathan David (2Sam 12:1-9) to aid in understanding Paul's use of that approach in Romans.
Steve Gregg also clarifies Paul's use of the Nathan-David approach (2 Sam 12:1-9) which is really good. However, he sees Paul speaking to Jews instead of gentiles. For his video see Romans 1:16-32 (Steve Gregg 2015)

Romans 1:16-32

During the 2015 session of the New Great Commission School, Bible-teacher Steve Gregg delivered a series of lectures on the book of Romans, which many people...

www.youtube.com

At 9:00, Steve starts with some useful description of the situation. At 11:55 to 14:30 -- Steve shares how Nathan approached David.

 

[jeremiah1five]

First error.
Saul wrote to Jewish Christians at Rome.
The Jewishness of the letter is way beyond the comprehension of Gentile mindset and culture. They know nothing about the terminology, concepts, the Temple, the prophets and their prophecies, although the language is Greek, the concepts are Jewish as are the discussion.
Being that Gentiles hated the Jews and the Jews hated the Gentiles they did not mingle and each group lived separated from each other. They didn't attend synagogue as did the proselytes and God-Fearers, and were completely void of understanding the deep terminological discussion this letter contains.
But a Jew would understand the references to Abraham and Moses, to David and Hosea, and the other prophets of God. A Jew would know and understand everything Saul wrote to them about.
Correct this perception and the error that Saul was writing to Gentiles and come to the knowledge of the truth.
Saul, Peter, James, John, Matthew, all of them wrote to the Jews and to Jewish Christians. And why not? It was a Jewish covenant, a Jewish Messiah, Jewish Temple, Jewish synagogues, Jewish prophets and prophecies. ALL the New Covenant writings by Jewish Christians wrote to other Jewish Christians about their Redeemer, their Messiah, and King.
King of the Jews, right?
Do you actually think and believe God would spend four thousand years of dealing with His people, fighting their wars, delivering their lives, sending them prophets when they disobeyed, and sending good leaders when they obeyed, and finally sending His Son to die for His people (Matt. 1:21), and after the resurrection God's first words are to uncircumcised, non-covenant, idol-worshiping Gentiles?
Salvation is of the Jews.
Let's leave it to them, to whom it really belongs.
The people of Covenant.
The Jewish people.

Israel is the Church of God.
Israel is the Bride of God.
Israel is the apple of His own eye. God is a faithful God. He loves only ONE woman: His Bride.
Putting it in perspective if God were to love Gentiles the same way He loves Israel that would be called adultery.
No, every love letter in the New Covenant era was written by Jewish Christians TO and FOR other Jewish Christians as they discuss the New Covenant era they find themselves is. They have to make sense of everything that happened in Israel and in Jerusalem in the space of a three-year Ministry of a Rabbi called Yeshua of Nazareth who claimed to be God's Son and Israel's Messiah. A Teacher of the Jews in their Torah and One who allowed Himself to be beaten and spitted upon, One who allowed Himself to be taken and murdered so that the covenant people of God can be saved, so His Bride be together with Him forever.
Correct your belief God wrote the New Covenant to Gentiles and your understanding of this "so-great salvation" will deepen.

THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT
7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.
8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God. Genesis 17:7–8.

THE MOSAIC COVENANT
8 And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words. Exodus 24: 8.

THE NEW COVENANT
31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, That I will make a new covenant With the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Jeremiah 31:31.

 

[mikesw]

First error.
Saul wrote to Jewish Christians at Rome.
King of the Jews, right?
Do you actually think and believe God would spend four thousand years of dealing with His people, fighting their wars, delivering their lives, sending them prophets when they disobeyed, and sending good leaders when they obeyed, and finally sending His Son to die for His people (Matt. 1:21), and after the resurrection God's first words are to uncircumcised, non-covenant, idol-worshiping Gentiles?
Salvation is of the Jews.

I didn't think God would extend his blessings to gentiles in addition to Jews when I read the OT. I certainly am glad that Paul elaborated on the mystery of extending that justification to all people in Christ. The discussion of Christ and the Jews is certainly an important topic of discussion concerning how God has acted in this world and regarding prophecy, but I am focused on Romans. If we mess up on the identification of the letter's recipients, the letter remains confusing. The evidence of Rom 1:1-16 and other areas of the letter is presented in the book "Solving the Romans Debate" by A. Andrew Das. If you want to counter gentile participation in the benefits in Christ and receiving benefits originally perceived as only going to Jews, you can create a thread to address those details.
The body of evidence of a gentile-only audience does not start until later in Romans, especially chapters 6 and 7. Much of the stuff earlier in Romans tends to fit more ambiguously whether Jews or gentiles are the primary recipients.
Your proposal does fit some with the sense that gentiles in Rome had, by most theories, come to know Christ through synagogues that accepted followers of the gospel. So gentiles essentially joined a sect of Judaism. Many of the gentiles would have learned through the synagogues for up to 18 years while following Christ (maybe even longer for those who joined with Jews before Christ's death and resurrection).
I'm hoping on this thread for people to try to understand the theory proposed more in its continuity than trying to challenge from more common theories that envision Jews as the recipients. (It is a given that someone who expects Jews to be the recipients will argue that Jews are the recipients.)

 

[jeremiah1five]

I didn't think God would extend his blessings to gentiles in addition to Jews when I read the OT. I certainly am glad that Paul elaborated on the mystery of extending that justification to all people in Christ. The discussion of Christ and the Jews is certainly an important topic of discussion concerning how God has acted in this world and regarding prophecy, but I am focused on Romans. If we mess up on the identification of the letter's recipients, the letter remains confusing. The evidence of Rom 1:1-16 and other areas of the letter is presented in the book "Solving the Romans Debate" by A. Andrew Das. If you want to counter gentile participation in the benefits in Christ and receiving benefits originally perceived as only going to Jews, you can create a thread to address those details.
The body of evidence of a gentile-only audience does not start until later in Romans, especially chapters 6 and 7. Much of the stuff earlier in Romans tends to fit more ambiguously whether Jews or gentiles are the primary recipients.
Your proposal does fit some with the sense that gentiles in Rome had, by most theories, come to know Christ through synagogues that accepted followers of the gospel. So gentiles essentially joined a sect of Judaism. Many of the gentiles would have learned through the synagogues for up to 18 years while following Christ (maybe even longer for those who joined with Jews before Christ's death and resurrection).
I'm hoping on this thread for people to try to understand the theory proposed more in its continuity than trying to challenge from more common theories that envision Jews as the recipients. (It is a given that someone who expects Jews to be the recipients will argue that Jews are the recipients.)

All of Saul's letters are addressed to Jewish Christians in the named cities. Saul might discuss Gentiles, but he has addressed his letters to those born-again and in covenant.
And unless the context identifies uncircumcised, non-covenant idol-worshiping Gentiles then he is talking about circumcised proselytes and uncircumcised God-Fearers. They would be the ones that would hear the message of Jesus Christ first since the testimonies were Jewish in nature and the discussion was made among the Jews.

 

[mikesw]

All of Saul's letters are addressed to Jewish Christians in the named cities. Saul might discuss Gentiles, but he has addressed his letters to those born-again and in covenant.
And unless the context identifies uncircumcised, non-covenant idol-worshiping Gentiles then he is talking about circumcised proselytes and uncircumcised God-Fearers. They would be the ones that would hear the message of Jesus Christ first since the testimonies were Jewish in nature and the discussion was made among the Jews.

It could be like you said just now. But these gentiles did not let Jews return into the main fellowship after Jewish Christians had been expelled from Rome and then returned after Claudius died. It will take several posts before getting into that detail though.

 

[jeremiah1five]

It could be like you said just now. But these gentiles did not let Jews return into the main fellowship after Jewish Christians had been expelled from Rome and then returned after Claudius died. It will take several posts before getting into that detail though.

After their split from the Judaizers in their synagogues Jewish Christians began to gather in their homes. Gentiles would not have gathered in Jewish homes in their absence if indeed ALL Jewish Christians were expelled from Rome.
Claudius reigned from AD 41-AD 54. The expulsion occurred around AD 49. Claudius died AD 54. Saul wrote to Jewish believers at Rome around AD 57-58, enough time for the Jewish Christians to return and be the recipients of Saul's letter to Rome.

 

[mikesw]

After their split from the Judaizers in their synagogues Jewish Christians began to gather in their homes. Gentiles would not have gathered in Jewish homes in their absence if indeed ALL Jewish Christians were expelled from Rome.
Claudius reigned from AD 41-AD 54. The expulsion occurred around AD 49. Claudius died AD 54. Saul wrote to Jewish believers at Rome around AD 57-58, enough time for the Jewish Christians to return and be the recipients of Saul's letter to Rome.

Thanks. Much of what you posted is useful here. The differences will be seen to the degree I can share the broad proposed interpretation.

 

[jeremiah1five]

That is the Gentile perspective. However, since God gave the oracles of God to the Jews Scripture cannot be broken.
All the Hebrew Scriptures from Genesis to Revelation were written to the Jews and Jewish Christians.
It is the high point of Gentiles to think that God would spend nearly six thousand years and three covenants with the Hebrew people, defend them, protect them, feed them, raise them like a Shepherd to his sheep, and send His very own Son to die for them and His first words in the New Covenant era is to Gentiles?
That's funny.
And heretical.

 

[TibiasDad]

I find that Paul wrote to Roman Gentile Christians who had thought Jews lost their chance to be saved.

First error.
Saul wrote to Jewish Christians at Rome.

You’re both right and wrong at the same time.

The Roman church was mostly comprised of Gentile believers, but the Jewish believers that earlier had been dispersed were returning to find they were largely outnumbered and without the authority they once possessed.

The overwhelming intent of Paul message in the first 8 chapters of Romans is to show that all men, both Jews and Gentiles, are equally in the same boat.

The whole of humanity is depicted in chapter one as being in a downward spiral in sin, and Paul’s conclusion is that mankind as a whole is without excuse. This is the wholistic declaration to man before there were classifications of differing nations, especially Jews vs Gentiles (non Jews).

Paul restates this foundational principle that all men are equally sinful in 2:9, 3:23, 5:12, 15-17.

Indeed, there are times that Paul refers to the Jewish contingent in the church, and times when the Gentiles feel the sharpness of Paul’s voice, but it is not aimed at disregarding one group from the other, or elevating one group above the other group.
The message is the same in Romans that he gave in Galatians 3:28, “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Paul’s apostleship was to go to the Gentiles, but he never disregarded his own people. In Acts, Paul always went to the Jewish center of life, the synagogue, first in every city to which he came. But he shared equally with the Gentile population too.

This is the consistent pattern that we find in the book of Romans. He is correcting both Jews and Gentiles by showing that they are in the same boat, and stop judging each other by their genetic makeup.

All have sinned and fall short and all were died for in Christ’s death; now in Christ we are unified and part of one body! There are no Jews or Gentiles any longer.

Doug

 

[jeremiah1five]

You’re both right and wrong at the same time.
The Roman church was mostly comprised of Gentile believers, but the Jewish believers that earlier had been dispersed were returning to find they were largely outnumbered and without the authority they once possessed.

Mostly Gentile believers at Rome?
When was Romans written? AD 55-57? Some say 60.
From Pentecost (Feast of Harvests, a Jewish Feast), three thousand Jews were born again in Jerusalem. These were Jews who traveled to Jerusalem for the Feast and returned to their homes and synagogues taking with them their experience with their Holy Spirit of Promise, an outline of Peter's sermon, and Jesus, the claimed Messiah and King of the Jews.
Acts 2:47 says the Lord added to His Church of Jews daily such as should be saved. Even if there were one thousand conversions a day by the time you get to Rome in AD 57 which was about a quarter century Jesus was building His Church by the thousands every day whether in Israel of where these converted Jews returned to Gentile lands.

20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law: Acts 21:19–20.

Reports came back to the mother church in Jerusalem and Acts 21 is about twenty years later. And take note these converts practiced and were obedient to the Law. True, biblical Christianity for the next forty years until the destruction of the Temple and the Jewish homeland was Completed Judaism.

Even Saul was obedient to God's Torah:

24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law. Acts 21:23–24.

Saul wrote to Jewish Christians, and he may have in the letter addressed proselytes and God-Fearers and hard-core Gentiles who became saved, but he wrote to Jews.

The overwhelming intent of Paul message in the first 8 chapters of Romans is to show that all men, both Jews and Gentiles, are equally in the same boat.

The whole of humanity is depicted in chapter one as being in a downward spiral in sin, and Paul’s conclusion is that mankind as a whole is without excuse. This is the wholistic declaration to man before there were classifications of differing nations, especially Jews vs Gentiles (non Jews).

Show me in Scripture of Law, Psalms, and Prophets God having covenant with Gentiles. There is none.

Paul restates this foundational principle that all men are equally sinful in 2:9, 3:23, 5:12, 15-17.

Indeed, there are times that Paul refers to the Jewish contingent in the church, and times when the Gentiles feel the sharpness of Paul’s voice, but it is not aimed at disregarding one group from the other, or elevating one group above the other group.
The message is the same in Romans that he gave in Galatians 3:28, “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

God elevated the Hebrews/Jews above all the nations of the earth. Don't diminished what God has elevated:

6 For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth. Dt 7:5–6.

Paul’s apostleship was to go to the Gentiles, but he never disregarded his own people. In Acts, Paul always went to the Jewish center of life, the synagogue, first in every city to which he came. But he shared equally with the Gentile population too.

Have you discerned and identified when Gentiles are mentioned he's not addressing circumcised Gentile proselytes and uncircumcised Gentile God-Fearers? These were allied with Israel and obedient to the Torah. Of course, they were closest to the synagogues when Jesus was testified and were first to be converted.

This is the consistent pattern that we find in the book of Romans. He is correcting both Jews and Gentiles by showing that they are in the same boat, and stop judging each other by their genetic makeup.

All have sinned and fall short and all were died for in Christ’s death; now in Christ we are unified and part of one body! There are no Jews or Gentiles any longer.

Doug

Don't forget Jesus is the fulfillment of Jewish covenant and Jewish prophecy. He was from Judah and came to and for the Jewish people. Salvation is of the Jews, not the Gentiles.

 

[mikesw]

You’re both right and wrong at the same time.

The Roman church was mostly comprised of Gentile believers, but the Jewish believers that earlier had been dispersed were returning to find they were largely outnumbered and without the authority they once possessed.

The overwhelming intent of Paul message in the first 8 chapters of Romans is to show that all men, both Jews and Gentiles, are equally in the same boat.

The whole of humanity is depicted in chapter one as being in a downward spiral in sin, and Paul’s conclusion is that mankind as a whole is without excuse. This is the wholistic declaration to man before there were classifications of differing nations, especially Jews vs Gentiles (non Jews).

Paul restates this foundational principle that all men are equally sinful in 2:9, 3:23, 5:12, 15-17.

Indeed, there are times that Paul refers to the Jewish contingent in the church, and times when the Gentiles feel the sharpness of Paul’s voice, but it is not aimed at disregarding one group from the other, or elevating one group above the other group.
The message is the same in Romans that he gave in Galatians 3:28, “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Paul’s apostleship was to go to the Gentiles, but he never disregarded his own people. In Acts, Paul always went to the Jewish center of life, the synagogue, first in every city to which he came. But he shared equally with the Gentile population too.

This is the consistent pattern that we find in the book of Romans. He is correcting both Jews and Gentiles by showing that they are in the same boat, and stop judging each other by their genetic makeup.

All have sinned and fall short and all were died for in Christ’s death; now in Christ we are unified and part of one body! There are no Jews or Gentiles any longer.

Doug

Paul's use of the Nathan-David approach shows that the hatred of the Roman gentiles toward Jews would indicate that no Jews were among the original recipients of the letter. Although you are right about the principle that there was no distinction between Jew and gentile, Paul had to write the letter with that distinction due to the hatred of the Jews that developed in this gentile church. It really only was when there was some sort of issue around this divide of Jew and gentile that Paul had to use those distinctions in his letters. Paul's letter appeared to be successful in changing the attitude of the gentiles.

 

[TibiasDad]

Paul's use of the Nathan-David approach shows that the hatred of the Roman gentiles toward Jews would indicate that no Jews were among the original recipients of the letter.

In my opinion, the “Nathan-David” approach is a self-comprised notion. For one, it is a methodology issue, not a theological principle. It doesn’t have a major hermeneutical import beyond a stylistic value. I very much doubt that Paul thought “I’m going to follow Nathan’s approach to David so these Gentiles can get my meaning.!”

Hermeneutically, you have to make a lot of assumptions to make that argument work. I think you’re mistaken when you conclude that “no Jews were among the original recipients of the letter”; it is not a conclusion, it is an assumption.

Another assumption is that these Gentile believers are well acquainted with the Jewish scriptures and teachings. That again is, in my opinion, a big leap of blind faith, in other words, an assumption.

Although you are right about the principle that there was no distinction between Jew and gentile, Paul had to write the letter with that distinction due to the hatred of the Jews that developed in this gentile church.

Why would Paul write about an issue for which there one there to hate. If no Jews were a part of the original audience, in what way is this hate demonstrated? Does Paul, call them out directly for this hatred? (It’s a rhetorical question.) Paul’s writing style is not a soft-shoe approach. He is a straight forward yes or no kind of author.

It really only was when there was some sort of issue around this divide of Jew and gentile that Paul had to use those distinctions in his letters. Paul's letter appeared to be successful in changing the attitude of the gentiles.

What demonstrates this “appearance” of success? What are the other examples in Paul’s writings that demonstrate “those distinctions”?


Doug

 

[mikesw]

In my opinion, the “Nathan-David” approach is a self-comprised notion. For one, it is a methodology issue, not a theological principle. It doesn’t have a major hermeneutical import beyond a stylistic value. I very much doubt that Paul thought “I’m going to follow Nathan’s approach to David so these Gentiles can get my meaning.!”

Hermeneutically, you have to make a lot of assumptions to make that argument work. I think you’re mistaken when you conclude that “no Jews were among the original recipients of the letter”; it is not a conclusion, it is an assumption.

Another assumption is that these Gentile believers are well acquainted with the Jewish scriptures and teachings. That again is, in my opinion, a big leap of blind faith, in other words, an assumption.



Why would Paul write about an issue for which there one there to hate. If no Jews were a part of the original audience, in what way is this hate demonstrated? Does Paul, call them out directly for this hatred? (It’s a rhetorical question.) Paul’s writing style is not a soft-shoe approach. He is a straight forward yes or no kind of author.




What demonstrates this “appearance” of success? What are the other examples in Paul’s writings that demonstrate “those distinctions”?


Doug

Thanks for checking out this description of Rom 1:18 to 2:1 and responding to it.

My point about use of the Nathan-David is not about the gentiles recognizing that passage. Instead, the idea is that Paul used this technique to get their attention and repentance. Contrary to your rejection of Paul's intent to use this. It was a careful selection by Paul. If the animosity toward Jews was so great, it hardly is likely that the gentiles accepted them in the same gatherings.

Your assumption that Paul was writing directly is the error that has been followed for 2000 years of interpreting Romans. The interpretation fails to establish continuity of the rest of the letter. If you don't recognize the audience and the situation, the whole understanding of Romans fails.

What I have shared is not some freaky leap of faith, it is simply a matter of reading comprehension -- which hopefully is not seen as a bad objective. Basically Paul had to figure out how to get a hostile audience to stay interested in the letter. Paul too is a Jew and would be under suspicion by the gentile-only audience. Everything fits together when read in this light. I only give the introduction to this topic in the original post.

To reject this reading outright is like rejecting a book based on its cover. My posting of this explanation of 1:18 to 2:1 is mostly to introduce an alternative way for people to start examining Romans in its original light. I hardly can convince many people with only the introduction of this restored understanding of the letter.

 

[mikesw]

I should add that it is a bad assumption that Paul is somehow a robotic writer who can only use a hammer to fix loose screws. As a person among many, he has the ability to tailor his writing to the best approach he can imagine. We often read the scripture in a reductionist sense that it was written to us as the primary reader. In reality, we need to recognize how the original recipients would hear the letter and would react to what the author is saying.

 

[TibiasDad]

Thanks for checking out this description of Rom 1:18 to 2:1 and responding to it.

My point about use of the Nathan-David is not about the gentiles recognizing that passage. Instead, the idea is that Paul used this technique to get their attention and repentance. Contrary to your rejection of Paul's intent to use this. It was a careful selection by Paul. If the animosity toward Jews was so great, it hardly is likely that the gentiles accepted them in the same gatherings.

Your assumption that Paul was writing directly is the error that has been followed for 2000 years of interpreting Romans. The interpretation fails to establish continuity of the rest of the letter. If you don't recognize the audience and the situation, the whole understanding of Romans fails.

What I have shared is not some freaky leap of faith, it is simply a matter of reading comprehension -- which hopefully is not seen as a bad objective. Basically Paul had to figure out how to get a hostile audience to stay interested in the letter. Paul too is a Jew and would be under suspicion by the gentile-only audience. Everything fits together when read in this light. I only give the introduction to this topic in the original post.

To reject this reading outright is like rejecting a book based on its cover. My posting of this explanation of 1:18 to 2:1 is mostly to introduce an alternative way for people to start examining Romans in its original light. I hardly can convince many people with only the introduction of this restored understanding of the letter.

Well, Mike, if you’re implying that readers and interpreters for the last two millennia have had a problem with reading comprehension, then that is your burden to bear.

I stand by my assessment of your assertions as they are presented, and yet I don’t begrudge you of your opinion; I just find your argument to be flawed, and have tried to explain why I think as I do. To each their own, I suppose, but my seminary professor for Romans gave me an A so he saw no issue of comprehension on my part!

I find nothing in Romans that supports your assumptions, much less demands such a perspective.


Doug

 

[mikesw]

Well, Mike, if you’re implying that readers and interpreters for the last two millennia have had a problem with reading comprehension, then that is your burden to bear.

I stand by my assessment of your assertions as they are presented, and yet I don’t begrudge you of your opinion; I just find your argument to be flawed, and have tried to explain why I think as I do. To each their own, I suppose, but my seminary professor for Romans gave me an A so he saw no issue of comprehension on my part!

I find nothing in Romans that supports your assumptions, much less demands such a perspective.


Doug

Thanks for the discussion again.

Certainly it is my burden to bear. My basic argument will be that the letter reads more sensibly in light of this starting point.

Also, until this gets into the hands of better writers, the ideas will remain difficult to follow. I also realize that many people may still reject the evidence after it has been laid out fully. Oh well. That is what Paul left us with.

I consider this Paul's amazing ability to write with such careful rhetoric that people have not recognized it for 2000 years. This letter would not be the first one misunderstood for such a long time. Consider all the prophets.

 

[TibiasDad]

Certainly it is my burden to bear. My basic argument will be that the letter reads more sensibly in light of this starting point.

But my question is where does this starting point manifest itself? In the biblical text of Romans? In extra biblical writings or historical documents? If not either of these, then the source of this assumption cannot be founded on academic grounds.

From my perspective, if this has been misunderstood for 2000 years, then this implies that your argument is a relatively new idea, which begs the question why didn’t anyone else propose this idea? For me, either they had no reason to see such a scenario or they deliberately ignored it.

Given the nature of the Reformation, I would think those trying to correct the teachings of the Catholic Church would have jumped at the chance to correct such a large mistake. Why didn’t it occur to any of the giants of the reformation?

I am trying to be honest and upfront with you, and I don’t want to be nick picky for the sake of being nick picky. I find so many gaps in the argument you’re making that these questions are just the tip of the iceberg.

These would have to be answered before I could further explore your argument.

Doug

 

[mikesw]

But my question is where does this starting point manifest itself? In the biblical text of Romans? In extra biblical writings or historical documents? If not either of these, then the source of this assumption cannot be founded on academic grounds.

From my perspective, if this has been misunderstood for 2000 years, then this implies that your argument is a relatively new idea, which begs the question why didn’t anyone else propose this idea? For me, either they had no reason to see such a scenario or they deliberately ignored it.

Given the nature of the Reformation, I would think those trying to correct the teachings of the Catholic Church would have jumped at the chance to correct such a large mistake. Why didn’t it occur to any of the giants of the reformation?

I am trying to be honest and upfront with you, and I don’t want to be nick picky for the sake of being nick picky. I find so many gaps in the argument you’re making that these questions are just the tip of the iceberg.

These would have to be answered before I could further explore your argument.

Doug

This starting point manifests in itself. The scholars who got any sense of similarity to Nathan's approach did not happen until the late 1800s. Then Stowers noted the technique in A Rereading of Romans in 1994 (pg 12). Also, Middendorf's Commentary on Romans noted it around 2013. The scholarly recognition of this has come rather late in time. However, the implications of Paul's use was not recognized, especially as to the reason his approach might convey this similarity. Consequently, why should it be a surprise that further clarity has come only after I stumbled on its relevance?

I'm saying that Paul's approach was to catch the Roman gentiles off guard in that it tricked them to expose their judgmental attitudes. Then Paul said in 2:1 -- "out of your angry hearts you were judging them, weren't you?" Anyone lacking the same attitude as these gentiles therefore would not fall into the web that Paul created. That is why no scholar has recognized this broader significance of the use of the Nathan-David approach. No one deliberately ignored the meaning of the text. Paul simply did not write it with later readers in mind.

 

[mikesw]

Maybe the only reason I found out about Paul's use of Nathan-David approach while others did not was that I was working my way backwards through Romans. No one else likely did that. I started first with Romans 10 to figure out why Paul had brought up the topic of Israel in the letter. Then I was working my way backwards to figure out the context or progression of the letter. When I reached to Rom 2:1, the question became really strong in my thoughts as to why Paul suddenly was making a harsh judgment against the Roman church members. Then I realized that the great sermon of Rom 1:18-32 could stir up a judgmental attitude. So I saw that Paul's approach was rhetorically similar in style to the Nathan-David encounter.
Other details fell into place from there. Partly I realized that if the church was mostly gentiles, then Rom 1:18-32 would likely be viewed as the gentiles' view about Jews. Everything else developed stepwise from that realization.